The Point of View questions thread

Discussion in 'Point of View, and Voice' started by SB108, Jul 8, 2007.

Tags:
  1. Homer Potvin

    Homer Potvin A tombstone hand and a graveyard mind Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,058
    Likes Received:
    19,670
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    Who's got time to delineate POV when you write a book every 45 days?
     
    Dr.Meow likes this.
  2. Dr.Meow

    Dr.Meow Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2017
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    Conspiring in my Spaceship
    So I get from this that you can do it, but it turns out bad even though you might sell a bunch of books. Also, that a book a month won't really be considered great literature...got it, patience will pay off. haha
     
  3. Laurin Kelly

    Laurin Kelly Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    4,054
    True...but I'd make a deal with the devil to be as successfully prolific as her. :D Honestly though, when it comes to mood and style I'd say she's the author I emulate the most.
     
    Apollypopping and Homer Potvin like this.
  4. Laurin Kelly

    Laurin Kelly Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    4,054
    Definitely not great literature, but for my reading tastes she never disappoints. I don't find her witchy/paranormal books as appealing, but she has so many works and series that I adore. I think the Born In trilogy is one of the best romance series out there.
     
  5. Homer Potvin

    Homer Potvin A tombstone hand and a graveyard mind Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,058
    Likes Received:
    19,670
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    Here here. Put in a word for me with Satan should this come up.
     
  6. NoGoodNobu

    NoGoodNobu Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    1,975
    I never understood why it seems everyone is so adamant about a singular, unaltering point of view. And if there are multiple POVs, to space them out as far from one another as possible and to make very blatant shifts.

    I've never had a problem with fluid, sudden POV shifts in novels.
    I was just re-reading Gaskell's North and South when realizing what I was reading confirmed to me how little the change in POV disorients me (which is to say not at all). I probably would never have had paid these shifts any mind if writers didn't constantly bring it up as a serious faux pas or even outright taboo.

    “I have been reading to-day of the two thousand who were ejected from their churches,'—continued Mr. Hale, smiling faintly,—'trying to steal some of their bravery; but it is of no use—no use—I cannot help feeling it acutely.'

    'But, papa, have you well considered? Oh! it seems so terrible, so shocking,' said Margaret, suddenly bursting into tears. The one staid foundation of her home, of her idea of her beloved father, seemed reeling and rocking. What could she say? What was to be done? The sight of her distress made Mr. Hale nerve himself, in order to try and comfort her. He swallowed down the dry choking sobs which had been heaving up from his heart hitherto, and going to his bookcase he took down a volume, which he had often been reading lately, and from which he thought he had derived strength to enter upon the course in which he was now embarked.

    'Listen, dear Margaret,' said he, putting one arm round her waist. She took his hand in hers and grasped it tight, but she could not lift up her head; nor indeed could she attend to what he read, so great was her internal agitation.”

    But then it seems to me (and probably only me) like contemporary writers are most adamant about rules that always directly contradict classical literature of bygone years—as though they hated their teachers for forcing these works on them so young before their minds were ready to appreciate them, and from this first coerced relation, they grew up hating styles or techniques that resembled these of their earliest experiences with literature that in their adolescence felt like torture. At any rate, it just always seems contemporary writing "rules" are diametrically opposed to priorly popular writing styles.

    Personally, I love reading flowery prose, composed in long ambling sentences, laden with descriptive adverbs & adjectives. I dislike Hemingway and utterly adore Wilde, but it seems the current popular mode is to encourage emulating the style of the former and vehemently dissuade from possessing any similarity to the latter.

    I really am curious—why exactly is shifting POVs frowned upon?

    Is it really just confusing in general for the majority of people?

    Is it simply that young/inexperienced writers do it poorly, and so to simplify matters others advise wholly against it?

    Is it a personal petpeeve or subjective distaste of individuals, and just a large number of individuals subscribe to this particular taste currently?

    I'm sorry if this is an obvious or stupid question.
     
  7. Homer Potvin

    Homer Potvin A tombstone hand and a graveyard mind Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,058
    Likes Received:
    19,670
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    That's it in a nutshell. And it's really one of the worst mistakes a writer can make, so you'll almost never see a book that flubs it make it into print. Those books that do headhop (like Dune) are good enough to stand on their own. The ones that screw it up? Barf-o-rama!

    ETA: the head-hopping aversion is also a modern thing, I believe. 19th century books did it all the time.
     
    NoGoodNobu likes this.
  8. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I'm not sure if your example is head-hopping or omniscient. Googling seems to lead to the conclusion that Gaskell's North & South is omniscient.
     
  9. NoGoodNobu

    NoGoodNobu Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    1,975
    So, to potentially ask further stupid questions, the only difference between appropriate headhopping or poorly written POV shifts is whether the author states/intends for it to be "limited" or "omniscient"?
     
  10. Homer Potvin

    Homer Potvin A tombstone hand and a graveyard mind Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,058
    Likes Received:
    19,670
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    Gaskell's North and South is 1855? There you go. 19th century literature.
     
  11. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    No, I wouldn't say that. There's a difference between failing to do something (like limiting what the narrator knows to the knowledge held by one person) and having no intention of doing that thing at all. Analogy: A sonnet isn't a haiku with too many lines; it's a totally different thing. The same for third person limited and third person omniscient.

    Now, I don't much like omniscient, so I can't speak for its value. It has value; I just can't speak eloquently for it.
     
    Tenderiser and Homer Potvin like this.
  12. truthbeckons

    truthbeckons Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    159
    Location:
    Australia
    I think that right there is the main problem. When it's done badly, it's jarring, it's confusing, and it's an inept device of convenience. Nothing pulls you out of a story like a barefaced device.

    Most of the time writers just focus on the main character throughout the story, so slipping into someone else's POV is out of place. If the narration is more shifting/omniscient throughout, it's a different matter.

    Shifting POV can be done well, but people tend to universalise general advice. It's a pity, but we have to keep that in mind. You might think of it as one of those "rules" that you really have to understand before you can get away with breaking it. It's a lot easier for people to say that it should never be done than to explain how it can work, especially if they themselves aren't familiar with it.

    Plenty of people aren't. Most people read a majority of fiction that uses simple POV, and maybe POV that's consistent within chapters, so there are fewer people who are familiar with how shifting POV can work. That means they'll probably be more successful just keeping it simple until they familiarise themselves with good examples of fluid POV, and in the meantime they can only really instruct others in using fixed POV.
     
  13. NoGoodNobu

    NoGoodNobu Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    1,975
    Okay, let me rephrase the question slightly:

    If you are not priorly informed in anyway, can you recognize limited where the author simply fails to limit the character's knowledge from omniscient?

    And can you share the method of distinguishing?

    (I'm not trying to be a smartass, I genuinely am asking)

    Edit: also, I didn't see the OP mentioning they were attempting 3rd person limited; just that they wanted to avoid POV shifts or to appropriately mark/space them—hence my example of omniscient with sudden POV shifts. I thought it was just a general avoidance, not trying to keep strictly to 3rd Limited. I am sorry if I had poor reading comprehension
     
  14. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Starting with the Edit, I would say that if you're trying to avoid POV shifts, you're not in omniscient, so the question indicates me that they are attempting third person limited--even if they didn't make a conscious decision that that's what they're doing.

    I'm a bad person to answer your main question, because, again, I don't like omniscient. :)

    I did some Googling, and this article is interesting. (Though I ignore the approval of direct thought in italics. :))

    https://ellenbrockediting.com/2013/11/26/the-difference-between-omniscient-pov-and-head-hopping/
     
  15. Dr.Meow

    Dr.Meow Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2017
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    Conspiring in my Spaceship
    Okay, now we're on to something, with your first post you cracked open the giant egg holding the pink elephant in the room. This is what I thought originally, that older literature was built on what people today call "head-hopping". Also, if for instance we're writing down the actions in a scene, wouldn't it be rather bland to always have the perspective of character A, when character B is doing things as well, and describing it all from A's view simply detracts from the actions of character B? If you're writing third person to begin with, shouldn't your perspective be more like camera positions in a movie, or oriented like drawings in a graphic novel? The only difference is it's all written, but when I write I always envision what the scene is in my head, and having had videography as a hobby makes it easier for me to know how things play out, and write them down as I "see" it.

    If I was making a movie of my book, then all this "head-hopping" would really just translate into well placed camera positions. That's how I see it in my head, so why not write it down as such? Is it truly a faux pas, or is it simply a writing style in and of itself? If it was first person, then I would understand completely that is was wrong and very jarring, but third person is supposed to be just that...third person, meaning it's not from a specific POV, but from everyone's. It's third person, and in every other medium I know of that means you can drag the camera over to a different character and run with them for a bit. In conversation in a movie, the camera doesn't just stay pointed over one person's shoulder, it moves around. I know it's not a movie, it's a book, but it's still third person regardless of medium, right?
     
    Rosacrvx likes this.
  16. NoGoodNobu

    NoGoodNobu Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    1,975
    Alright, another possibly stupid question: does shifting POV automatically equate to a 3rd person omniscient, or can it be regarded as 3rd person limited so long as it strictly only follows/illustrates one perspective character's knowledge at a time?

    And this might be exactly where my reading comprehension failed, because I interpreted their avoidance for POV shifts simply as following the general popular dislike for it & omniscient narration within contemporary writing community overall

    Thank you for the article. I'm going to read it now, and I do sincerely appreciate you're explains to me
     
  17. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Well, no. Why do you feel that the phrase "third person" means that?

    Even in terms of grammar, the sentence, "She ate the pudding," refers to just one person eating pudding, not the whole world.
     
  18. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I agree with the second position--as long as you are strictly following one person at a time, it can still be third person limited.
     
    NoGoodNobu likes this.
  19. NoGoodNobu

    NoGoodNobu Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    1,975
  20. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    OK, I admit that I had never registered the term "free indirect discourse" before your post here, and upon Googling, it appears to be almost precisely what I frequently talk about over in the italics for thought thread. (I do see that it's in the very article that I offered, but I skimmed portions of that article. :))

    But that doesn't help me answer your question. Can you further detail your question?
     
  21. Dr.Meow

    Dr.Meow Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2017
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    Conspiring in my Spaceship
    I get that, but what happens after she eats the pudding? When the next character walks in the room, do we still have to stay with the person who ate said pudding, or can we describe the actions of someone taking her plate away?
     
  22. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    What we do depends on...well, what we want to do. :)

    My protest was about the idea that "third person" somehow refers to multiple people. I'm not seeing that.
     
  23. Homer Potvin

    Homer Potvin A tombstone hand and a graveyard mind Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,058
    Likes Received:
    19,670
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    19th century again. Different rules. Different market. Everyone was illiterate. The only people who could read had classical aristocratic educations and could probably speak Latin and French in addition to their native language.
     
  24. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Edited to add: Another Google-found link that I found interesting, though I haven't finished reading it yet:

    http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2013/09/free-indirect-style-what-it-is-and-how-to-use-it.html
     
  25. Dr.Meow

    Dr.Meow Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2017
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    429
    Location:
    Conspiring in my Spaceship
    I wasn't actually implying that either, I'm not trying to make it where it's refering to multiple people. My point is whether we can move the "camera" over to person B and describe their actions, without constantly having to describe them through person A's POV?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice