Some of my favourite books are either in objective POV, or very distant third person limited. I don't think we need to be told character's thoughts all the time, there is a place for subtlety and an author should credit their audience with the intelligence to interpret situations, reactions and so on without constantly telling via a convenient slice of internal monologue.
One of the problems with the objective POV is that you're moving closer to being in competition with films and TV and they have the advantage that they can describe everything really vividly and succinctly by using those darn pictures. One of the advantages that prose has over most storytelling forms is the ability to see peoples thoughts and feelings and objective POV is choosing not to use that advantage. The other key advantages of prose seem to require a really strong narrative voice. If you can develop one of those voices then you can write things in objective that people want to read, but it seems to me you'll need to get a fair few more levels of 'good writer' to pull it off. - plus there seems to be less advice about for how to write in objective POV. So it isn't a POV that appeals to me to write in, but I'm not opposed to reading in that POV.
I disagree with the idea that writing in objective POV puts you into competition with movies and TV. If you treat description as simply painting images in the readers' mind (which is a big part of it, obviously), then fair enough. If you treat description as setting a mood, I think the advantages of pictures lessen significantly; maybe the playing field isn't equal, but it's closer to being so.
Remember film is also using its visuals to create mood. As well as its soundtrack. You have to be a pretty good writer to create moods as good as in film. I think mood is a great example of an aspect where writers can use character POV to compete with film. Character thoughts, emotions, internal sensations, sense of touch, they're all tools that can be used to create mood in ways that film can't. Maybe if you have a strong lyrical style, maybe you are skilled at creating none cliched metaphors, then you can create mood as strong as film from just audio visual description in ways that film can't. But that's harder to pull of well while maintaining clarity and not producing purple prose and is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say 'really strong narrative voice'
You remind me of myself, years ago and I was starting my first ever novel. The problem with your train of thought, as stated above, is that you can't just "set" a mood, you need to make the reader feel it. One of the easiest ways to immerse a reader in setting or mood is through a compelling narrative. When we can empathize with someone, be it a dog or a human being, the mood you try to set will be easier for us to digest. With a completely objective 3rd person POV (this is called fly on the wall, right?) it is harder to make the reader care about the characters, and thus harder to make them care about the mood. A movie doesn't have this problem. A good actor can exude things that might take you 1,000 words to capture, if you try to stick objective descriptions. Worse, a good actor can show things you can't capture in any amount of words, if sticking to objective descriptions. Top this off with vivid settings and music, and the cards are all stacked against you. I'm definitely not saying its impossible to write a great 3rd person objective POV. But you need to be a really, really, good writer to pull it off.
Maligned by whom? I always thought "show, don't tell" was the mainstream opinion. The POV you describe is nothing more than the author's refusal to tell anything that can be shown. I thought that POV was, by far, the most popular POV. In third person, I personally prefer that the book minimizes exposition of characters' thoughts. Save that for first person, where the imaginary entity telling me the story is the same imaginary entity who has thoughts about the story.
How does this not also apply to subjective descriptions? A good actor can show an angry character, for example, far better than 'he clenched his fists and grit his teeth', or 'I'll kill the bastard, he thought', if we're going off economy alone. I take issue, as well, with the idea that mediums compete with each other. All forms of art have their pros and cons, but they don't directly compete; you could look at basically anything and see something it could have gained by having been written for a different medium. We don't look at those movies which do have internal monologues and say that they're competing with prose. Simply because we have something else, films, that already excludes character thoughts, and arguably does it better, doesn't mean that the novel loses its right to the same ground. If that were the case, why would anyone write plays? Everything a play does can be done at least as well in a movie, with the extra benefits of post-production.
Show don't tell has nothing to do with it. An subjective POV shows events as experienced by that POV. An objective POV shows events as experienced "objectively," which I suppose can be described as being filmed from a camera.
I would say that neither of those examples are very good demonstrations of a subjective POV hard at work. I believe therein may lie your problem. The first example you used is a physical description, and can be experienced from a video camera. The second, which can't be experienced from a camera, is a rather impotent statement, without any context. A subjective POV really starts to excel when you can color the world (eg mood) from the perspective of your POV, focus on only things that matter to that POV (eg a subjective lens) and relate things that only the character would know (his past experiences, fears, hopes, dreams, etc). This is by no means an exhaustive list, but just a taste of things a subjective POV can do that most movies can't, although you do have a good point about the monologue.
I thought third person limited was the most popular POV these days and that third person objective was comparatively rare. Most published third person books I've read are jammed packed with sentences that are clearly in a character's POV rather than the narrator's. Directly quoted thoughts are relatively rare, but there's an awful lot of indirectly implied thoughts, memories, desires, emotions, descriptions via a character's five senses etc. I don't think the choice to use objective POV really has much to do with how much you are showing and telling you are doing. It's entirely possible to write in objective POV with lots of telling or with lots of showing.
@123456789 @plothog The OP basically defines "objective" as "the narrator cannot read the characters' minds". I think your confusion comes from using a different definition. That is why, in my post, I used the phrase "the POV you describe" instead of "the objective POV". This: is an effective way for an author to give feeling to a story while avoiding what the OP wants to avoid.
I'm experimenting with first person and third person lately, but I can't really decide which one I prefer. It feels like they both have pros and cons, but they're not comparable. I find writing in third person a lot easier, because I can act out each character more. If I work out of first person, it feels like I'm very much limited to that one character. That said, I've read excellent first person stories, that have managed to utilize several characters to the maximum.
Depends. If I'm writing about a character or a world that I am creating simply to show a point, or get a particular message across, I usually use third person. When I'm trying to convey an emotion or suffering of sorts, I tend to switch automatically to first person, since I imagine what it would be like for the particular character (put myself in their shoes.) I think both work depending on what the goal of your work is.
I personally prefer writing in first person when I want to depict a strong main character as opposed to a group of characters. I currently have a science fiction novel in works that is first person the entire time. A strong component of the book is the main character reliving certain memories throughout the novel. I feel by keeping it first person it allows for a stronger experience. Another fantasy novel I have is completely in third person due to the fact that there eight - ten prominent characters. A horror novel I'm focusing on is done primarily in third person and at times has moments of inner-monologue where it falls into first person. I use the transition as a device to simulate an inner collapse. To purposely break the flow and display a fracture of story and mind. As I always say -- if it is written well, it is readable. First person, second, third, or millionth person. Just do it well.
The vast majority of my writing has been in third person (omniscient). I think it works best for my style and what I write and I like the sense of scale that comes with it, if that makes any sense. I write Fantasy and there are extensive settings to explore... I like using a wider angle for that. I tend to look into the characters anyway when appropriate by having the narrative keep close to them and follow their thought processes, but I can also zoom out again when needed and switch characters at will. The main project I'm currently working on (or should be working on) is my first attempt at writing first-person and I'm not sure how to feel about it. I have to keep the writing style a lot more casual than I'm used to because this is an in-universe character acting as the narrator and they narrate the way they talk. I can't embellish much, I can't be objective and I can't really deal with anything that the character wouldn't care about. On one hand, it's an interesting experience and allows for a humourous approach (with this particular character), but on the other hand, it's also not something I would like to do again. It doesn't feel right to me, more like I'm typing up a forum post or "rambling" (albeit in-character) than writing Fantasy. Not something I can get used to.
I think this is a GREAT way to be able to challenge yourself. I'm smack in the middle, I prefer each for different reasons, and I often want to switch from third to first in the same piece of work. I'm experimenting with that now and will see how it's received, but I think it's great you tried writing in first person. I know what you mean by not being able to do much in first person, because you can only stick to what the character can know or perceive, and you are limited in that way. If I were you I would continue experimenting with it. You never know what you might come up with. What I've also done in this situation is I've written the story all in third person, but with snippets of first person in Italics to depict what a character may be thinking which, in many cases, can only be accurately expressed if it's in first person. Maybe that could work for you also. I enjoy being able to explore the third person freedoms mixed with first person limitations. I think there is LOTS of leeway for creativity there and would suggest every writer try it at least once
I think that the difference is only in what you want to render and make the reader feel. If you want the reader to experience every feeling of your protagonist, then it's necessary to write in the first person. If you want to twist the reader and make the plot more complicated -- use the third person. But it's only my personal opinion.
That may of course be your preference, but it's definitely not necessary. Close third person can get just as close to the character.
Can an unreliable close third person narrator be as effective as an unreliable first person narrator? (Not a rhetorical question; I would genuinely like to know how to make it work.)
I don't know why not. I suppose the best way to answer the question of how to make it work would be to ask in return what you think the primary difficulty would be, and then we can consider how to address it. I think the two instances would be largely similar.
I think you can do really subtle unreliable narration in third, but I'm not sure I've ever read a full-blown version. In terms of the more subtle approach, I'm thinking of characterization issues, mostly. I feel like I've read third person novels where the POV character trusted the wrong person, and later on, looking back, the readers can see that the POV character was allowing herself to be fooled. So not a full-on lie from the narrator, but certainly narration that presents things in a way that later proves to be false. ETA: Not sure if that counts as unreliable narration or not, really. I mean, if we're looking strictly at deliberate lying/withholding by the narrator, then I'm inclined to think it wouldn't really work with a 3rd person POV.
I don't think a unreliable narrator has to be deliberately deceiving. Humbert Humbert, in Lolita, for example, is about as unreliable as you can get, but I think he believes what he is telling you. He's a sick individual, but he's telling you things as he sees them.
That is a first person narrative I definitely have a hard time figuring out how to translate into a close, even unreliable, third person narrator without sacrificing what makes the book what it is. Especially with the whole framing device that is explicitly mentioned in the foreword, the last chapter, and a few more times throughout. Even the first line. "Lolita, light of Humbert's life, fire of his loins."
Yes. I think it could be done in third person, but it would certainly take away from what the book is supposed to be, and you're quite right about how the story is framed. I'm just wondering, in general, why you couldn't take a first person unreliable narrator, one that doesn't have the framing of a book like Lolita, and simply rewrite it in third person in largely the same way. Wouldn't you keep the unreliable narrator intact in that case? I agree that a book like Lolita would be the worse for it, but it seems like it would be possible to write an unreliable third-person narrator. There must be examples, though none come to mind immediately.
