My advice is to pick a person who annoys you and the write something from their perspective. The point isn't for it to be easy. Really, the point is exactly that it isn't easy. But it's an invaluable exercise, for fiction, essays, or just life in general, to be able to put yourself in another person's shoes and genuinely consider things from their perspective. Basically, just do your homework, you might learn something.
If it were me, I'd write it as a conversation between the annoying person and some other person. "What's wrong?" "I just had another run-in with Rumwriter. That guy just makes me crazy. You know what he did this time? He..." And so on. ChickenFreak
In my review of "By the seat of my pants" I made the following comment: "moving description doesn't require describing exactly how the PoV character moves, the description implies it." I was asked to explain in more detail so here it is. Once you establish that the character is your PoV carrier, moving the PoV along the character's path implies he is moving also. Describing the character actually moving through the path is superfluous. If you were, for example, to describe a forest as seen by a character who's advancing through it. You might structure it as: [Brutally simplified.] The character got to the forest. He went inside and started walking over a thick mantle of fallen leaves. He kept walking through the darkness deeper in the forest. He passed over a small river that snaked between the trees. He decided to stop in a clearing that opened before him. However, you could also describe it in the following way: The character got to the forest. Under the trees there was a thick mantle of fallen leaves. Farther from its limits, the forest grew darker. A small river snaked between the trees. A clearing opened before the character and he decided to stop. It's the writing equivalent of moving back the camera to show the forest. However, in writing it has two additional advantages. On one hand, the reader bypasses the character for the brief moment of the description, feeling it much closer (this can be bad as I'll explain later). On the other, the description, which is naturally a slower section of the story, is significantly shortened by removing the constant references to how the PoV carrier moves through the environment. The problem is clear, though (and it applies to the movie equivalent too). You're losing two chances of indirect character description: the world through his eyes and how he deals with it. I don't think it's productive to fight these two lost chances (it is possible, though, by reflecting the world back to the character). I'd just suggest to simply decide whether either description is necessary or they can wait to the next chance, that might well be unavoidable.
Thank you for posting this more detailed explanation. I see what you mean now. The continued reference to the characters’ movements makes the reader experience the scene as an outside observer rather than through the character. It makes us envision the character in the scene rather than envision the scene through the character. The camera metaphor is helpful. Start out with a wide shot to get the overall view of the character and scenario. Then zoom in closer to explore specifically what the character is seeing and reacting to. The importance of this became so clear with your quote below: Indirect character description holds more power than I previously realized. You gain personal insight to their character by seeing what things they notice. It gives the reader a look into their state of mind and what they deem important, as well as setting a tone for the story. The character’s reaction creates an emotional response from the reader as they gain understanding of their personality, insight into the essence of a person that cannot be gained through mere description alone. I think this is an extremely important lesson for new creative writers like myself, struggling to put the reader in the moment to allow them to experience the story through the characters.
Hi all. I have a story I wrote awhile back that I like and am thinking of resurrecting. The problem is, the story is told in third person limited for one character, then the main story is told third person limited for another character, then back to the first. I am having trouble getting what I want to get across just from one person's point of view. Is it correct or appropriate to do this in a short story? The story is about 5000 words long. My creative writing teacher for the class where I wrote this story said I am not supposed to swith POV at all in a short story. I disagreed at the time, but now I'm wondering if she was right. Thanks for your help.
Three POV changes in 5000 words might be too much, but could be done. I'd try to picture how it the story could be told from one POV, possibly two and see how it would look. If there is no way to do it without 3 POV changes, go ahead and do it. Use clear scene breaks and try to do it as smoothly as you can.
I find multiple POV's very interesting. I think seeing all the different characters through each of their eyes separately allows for a neat perspective. I guess the only thing would be 5000 words might be too little to explore it in enough depth. Good luck!
Of course you aren't supposed to change POV in a short story. That doesn't mean it can't be done but you'd have to do it right. If you are questioning it then maybe you need to have some writer friends read it and give you feedback.
Is that a RULE, or a GUIDELINE? There's an awful lot of writers and writing teachers who will recite long lists of rules, to have those rules broken by other writers and writing teachers. Not much is set in stone. If it's necessary for the story to have multiple POVs, then write it that way. If you can avoid multiple POVs in a short story, try it, but don't let your creativity be fettered by 'rules'.
Thanks for all the wonderful advice. Many of the novels I read either switch POV or they focus in each chapter on a different person and you can read one person's thoughts at a time. However, my teacher had told me in a short story, it is different. I didn't believe her at the time, and I hadn't read a lot of short stories. I'm noticing now as I'm reading more that it usually is in one point of view. I guess the first part of a story I'm returning to is describing in detail a particular character. Then, she joins three others. I want to get into a conflict among two others without her being present. Her late arrival is part of the conflict, so I can't exactly have her there. So, I would think I would have to switch to these other two, but the POV is in one of their frames of reference. Then, in the final two scenes, it's back to the original character. I cannot figure out how to just make it all in her POV. If I cut the other two and their argument, it ruins the essence of the story. Also, the conflict of the main character with one of these side characters. Hope it isn't too confusing. I'm just not sure how to make it all in her viewpoint. I'll think about it more, but if you have any advice and understood what I was saying, it would be helpful! By the way, I wrote this story before taking that class, and when I presented it to my teacher, she said it wasn't good because of this change of viewpoint. I scratched it then, but I discovered it recently and really like it. I'd like to fix it up.
For some time now I have had problems with POV for ONE of my novels. I don't have this problem with any other project, but this one is driving me nuts! Some parts I have written in First person present tense and others in Third person past. The problem is certain parts work better in first and others work better in third. In first I can use the consciousness of the main character to convey a sense of urgency and humour and really give the story a voice. On the other hand if I write in third I can write more descriptively and give other characters the occassional voice. There are two main characters, but one is only slightly secondary to the main. It is a comedy/crime caper series. I have tried writing parts in the opposing POV, but they don't work as well. I really want to have both, but I know a lot of people will say that's a big 'No-No'. I'm not sure anyone can help me out here, but maybe if I voice this issue and whinge a bit it might come to me. Or maybe some of you have had the same problem. Pulling my hair out here. I guess I'm trying to make the jokes work best. Some work best from a distance as observation and others work best from MC POV. Maybe I have to lose some good writing to decide. That is REALLY effing hard on this one.
You know what advice you are going to get from us, I expect. Follow if you want to master basics and increase chance of getting published as an unknown. a) Write in one tense throughout the novel. Usually past for past narrative is the most logical solution and most reader-friendly. b) Write in third person limited, not 1st, and certainly not a mixture of both, unless you do a 'letter/journal/listening to tape trick' or something. c) Use only one POV per 'scene'. You can always do a line break and show from another's POV--you don't have to have one POV only throughout the entire novel. d) Where you want to show conflicting ideas, etc, and/or have a crowd of characters together in a scene make use of dialogue and action, not internal thought. Of course, not every writer does this--but it takes a really exceptional writer to pull it off. Maybe that's you, I really don't know...
yeah i know the difference. and yes parts are more omniscient. not limited. i've NOT written the book in two viewpoints because that's what i plan to do, rather as i was developing it i just wrote what came to me and i figured whichever style worked best would rule in the end. most of my favourite pieces in this work are first person. it's more casual, which suits my voice, and funnier and since it's meant to be a comedy of sorts.....but then i have the secondary main character and i wonder if her voice should be represented. all my other writing is third person omniscient. but this one needs more attitude. more spunk. more funny. i'm just struggling with a decision.
been researching and found this in wikipedia. think i'll check out some of these books listed below. see if anything clicks with me. maybe i should take up a challenge! Alternating POV. While the general rule is for novels to adopt a single approach to point of view throughout, there are exceptions. Many stories, especially in literature, alternate between the first and third person. In this case, an author will move back and forth between a more omniscient third-person narrator to a more personal first-person narrator. The Harry Potter series is told in third person limited for much of the seven novels, but deviates to omniscient in that it switches the limited view to other characters from time to time, rather than only the protagonist. However, like the A Song of Ice and Fire series, a switch of viewpoint is done only at chapter boundaries. Omniscient point of view is also referred to as alternating point of view, because the story sometimes alternates between characters. Often, a narrator using the first person will try to be more objective by also employing the third person for important action scenes, especially those in which he/she is not directly involved or in scenes where he/she is not present to have viewed the events in first person. This mode is found in the novel The Poisonwood Bible. Epistolary novels, which were very common in the early years of the novel, generally consist of a series of letters written by different characters, and necessarily switching when the writer changes; the classic books Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Dracula by Abraham "Bram" Stoker and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde take this approach. Sometimes, though, they may all be letters from one character, such as C. S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters and Helen Fielding's Bridget Jones's Diary. Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island switches between third and first person, as do Charles Dickens's Bleak House and Vladimir Nabokov's The Gift. Many of William Faulkner's take a series of first-person points of view. E.L. Konigsburg's novella The View from Saturday uses flashbacks to alternate between third person and first person throughout the book; as does Edith Wharton's novel Ethan Frome. After the First Death, by Robert Cormier, a novel about a fictional school bus hijacking in the late seventies, also switches from first to third person narrative using different characters. The novel The Death of Artemio Cruz, by Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes, switches between the three persons from one chapter to the next, even though all refer to the same protagonist. The novel Dreaming in Cuban, by Cristina García, alternates between third person limited and first person depending on the generation of the speaker; the grandchildren recount events in first person while the parents and grandparent are shown in third person limited.
I think I might write some scenes in both POV's and post them up in review. Maybe then people can see what I'm troubled with and maybe I might have to go with popular opinion. Though I've never been one for popularity.
Are you sure you're not confusing multiple third person limited with omniscient? Because if you use omniscient there is no need to switch betwee characters (as in writing from more than one perspective) since the narrator knows everything.
I have some thoughts. Firstly, there are no rules for writing, just good ideas. Yes, it's generally a good idea to stick to one POV style throughout your story - does not mean you absolutely have to. (I've seen a series of mystery novels, can't remember the name, where the protagonist's point of view was depicted in 1st person, but the author often shifted to the 3rd person point of view of other characters when the protagonist wasn't present.) Secondly, limited 3rd person can be used in exactly the same way as 1st person. I've seen some 3rd person perspective stories which literally could have been written by taking a 1st person story and changing the pronouns and nothing else. You can get into a character's head as much or as little as you want in limited 3rd person - it's only omniscient 3rd person that has to stay out of people's heads. The one thing I suggest if you do switch POV styles is that you always have at least a line break between the two styles, if not an entire chapter break. It's less confusing that way.
I'm not. I'd like to sell my books, but I'm writing them because they're fun to write. I'm not writing to appeal to a market, I'm writing the kinds of books I would most like to read. If no one wants to publish them, that's their loss.
thanks guys, i've been going through some novels on my shelves that have styles complimentary to this project and my voice and i think i'll revisit the Harry Potter series with that third person limited pov. see if anything sticks. i was in the throes of despair yesterday, but feeling slightly more chipper this morning.
Even if you never try to publish anything, don't you want your work to be fun to read? Why limit your efforts to an audience of one (yourself)? Writing is a form of communication in the end, surely, not therapy?
There seems to be some confusion here between PoV and narrative focus. They are closely linked, true, but they're not the same thing. "using close viewpoints by 'zooming' in and out a lot" is more to do with narrative focus than PoV which can remain omniscient. That's why I get puzzled by the suggestion that omniscient is frowned on but might be coming back, because I never saw it go away. What does seem to have changed is a lot more attention to narrative focus within the omniscient PoV, something I first became aware of with Captain Corelli's Mandolin.
Basically do you think it would be distracting to switch subtly between POVs(mainly third to first) for a few sentences? Sort of like the unknown all knowing narrator type of thing. I'm asking from more of a stylistic point of view(puny), I understand it is 'rule breaking' but do you think it would be forgiven?
